The impact of adjusting for pure predictors of exposure, mediator, and outcome on the variance of natural direct and indirect effect estimators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now well established that adjusting for pure predictors of the outcome, in addition to confounders, allows unbiased estimation of the total exposure effect on an outcome with generally reduced standard errors (SEs). However, no analogous results have been derived for mediation analysis. Considering the simplest linear regression setting and the ordinary least square estimator, we obtained theoretical results showing that adjusting for pure predictors of the outcome, in addition to confounders, allows unbiased estimation of the natural indirect effect (NIE) and the natural direct effect (NDE) on the difference scale with reduced SEs. Adjusting for pure predictors of the mediator increases the SE of the NDE's estimator, but may increase or decrease the variance of the NIE's estimator. Adjusting for pure predictors of the exposure increases the variance of estimators of the NIE and NDE. Simulation studies were used to confirm and extend these results to the case where the mediator or the outcome is binary. Additional simulations were conducted to explore scenarios featuring an exposure-mediator interaction as well as the relative risk and odds ratio scales for the case of binary mediator and outcome. Both a regression approach and an inverse probability weighting approach were considered in the simulation study. A real-data illustration employing data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging is provided. This analysis is concerned with the mediating effect of vitamin D in the effect of physical activity on dementia and its results are overall consistent with the theoretical and empirical findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.161 | 0.447 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".